Business of the House

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given the pressure on time, to which I referred earlier, I should now appreciate single, short supplementary questions.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House that there is to be a debate on the European Union and workers’ rights next week. Could he also provide an opportunity for the House to debate the rights of this House, because without our supporting our own rights, there are no rights for workers? The Court this morning reinforced the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear that this House believes in its own powers and privileges; that they should be sustained; and that we should not enter into the farce that we entered into last Monday, when Parliament made a mistake in relation to Select Committees? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

It is being chuntered from a sedentary position that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. He is indeed a very distinguished lawyer, but I fear that we will have to wait for the next question to get a brief one.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am also a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also a Member of Parliament, and we have heard him with great courtesy and, indeed, a degree of charity.

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

One often sees the type currently drafted into clause 17 when a defendant has to rebut a presumption—the possession of certain items in sexual offences or drugs offences. It is also to be found under certain rarely used disclosure offences, such as under section 119 of the Companies Act 2006—something that we speak about so frequently in the clubs and bars of Market Harborough. As regards the substantive criminal law and the making of a substantive criminal offence, my hon. Friend is right to say that this is a rare and wholly unusual distinction, and I quietly urge the Government to think again.

As drafted, this provision abandons the principle that it is the defendant’s state of mind that must be “criminal”, whether defined in terms of belief or even suspicion, for an objective test: whether he had reason to suspect. What may arise from an offence defined in that way can be quickly described. The defendant may be offered property which, because of the circumstances, he may have reason to suspect may be prohibited. Just because he wishes to proceed with caution, and to avoid committing a criminal offence, after sensible inquiry and investigation he may in good faith decide that his suspicions have been allayed and proceed to deal in the property. For a defendant acting in good faith to be convicted of an offence of dishonesty is a novel proposition. It may be suggested that the offence is not intending to apply to such an individual, but only to the individual who, notwithstanding any investigations he may make, turns a blind eye to reasonable grounds for suspicion, but that is not what the clause says. The offence can and should be defined in terms of the defendant’s belief or suspicion, and currently it is not.

Surely the question to ask is whether the defendant did or did not believe, or did or did not suspect. The more powerful the evidence that he had reason to suspect, the more likely it is that the jury would conclude that he did indeed believe or suspect, and that the offence is proved. In short, where the defendant did indeed have “reason to suspect”, that would provide the evidence to establish that he did indeed believe or suspect that he was dealing in prohibited property. That however goes to the evidence available to prove guilt; it should not define the offence.

It would be unusual for an offence of dishonesty to be created that did not focus on the defendant’s personal state of mind. It would also be unusual to create two offences in a single provision which make provision for separate and distinctive forms of criminal intent: knowledge, which is entirely subjective; and reason to suspect, which is not. Any summing up in an indictment which alleges the two offences as alternatives would not be straightforward. Worse still, it would be unwise, and it would make for significant complexity in any trial for two statutes with the same objective—the protection of the cultural heritage of every nation—not to define criminal intent in exactly the same way.

Section 1 of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 states—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but when he leant down like that, I thought it was because he was approaching his peroration. That may have been a triumph of optimism over experience.

[Tim Loughton]

Ungallant.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Ms Bell, I think, has spoken on my behalf. I was just advising you, Mr Speaker, about section 1 of the 2003 Act, which I know you want to hear about.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

At least I am right about that. [Laughter.] It states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if he dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted.”

This Bill says that it is

“an offence for a person to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported.”

For the reasons that I have been briefly explaining, I suspect that the 2003 Act provides the better wording. The provision in this Bill is not following well-established principles relating to the prosecution of offences of dishonesty. I am concerned that the Bill, which is concerned with the same issues, fails properly to take into account that set of principles. As drafted, it may result in the prosecution and conviction for an offence of dishonesty of a defendant who has, or may have, acted in good faith.

It is one thing for a defendant to be convicted of handling stolen goods where they have been shown to have known or believed the goods were stolen—the law is clear and the defendant knows when he is convicted that the jury was sure he knew or believed the goods were stolen—but under this Bill, as currently framed, a convicted defendant cannot be sure that his conviction reflects his actual state of knowledge or belief and that he was not convicted simply for lacking curiosity. Absence of curiosity may be regrettable and sometimes stupid or negligent, but it should not lead to a conviction, with all the reputational damage that flows from it.

Beyond that, I urge the Government to consider what effect this provision will have on the art market here in London. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks with the advantage of being not only a lawyer, but a former director of Christie’s, this will have a stifling effect. It may be that there will not be many convictions or many arrests, but the mere threat of the reputational damage caused by this possibility is enough to put the mockers on this valuable and entirely legitimate aspect of the London art market. The art market will go elsewhere and the crooks will get away with it. If we want to catch the bad boys, and if we want to inhibit this wrong and immoral market, why not stick to the 2003 wording or something similar to it, rather than allowing this Bill to contain an error of principle which could confound the interests of all of us who wish to see the destruction and the dealing in cultural objects that have been stolen brought to an end?

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has only just started bobbing, but I think we should hear from him.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

A double bob.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoken for his chum as well?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A single eloquent sentence from an illustrious QC? I call Sir Edward Garnier.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

In addition to the work that the unit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be doing to look outwards to the European Union and our relations with it, will he also look at the preservation of the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

None of the prisoners in that prison—it was not too far from Lichfield!—was ever going to leave prison to work in a hairnet factory. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that proper wages are paid for the work we tell prisoners to do, so that they can support their families, rather than the welfare state, and can leave prison and get a job that they want to do?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hairnet has been replaced, to judge by the length of the question, but we greatly enjoyed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend is attempting to do, but I suspect he is trying to pot the wrong ball. Suppose he allowed himself to step back a bit from “exceptional public interest”—a moderately nonsensical expression, if I may say so—and consider the issue from a different angle. He will come at the right answer, which is the political answer that he and I want to achieve, and the Treasury answer that he has been invited to achieve, and we can then adjust the system of judicial review so that footling, silly cases that for some reason may have slipped through the net—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman with great respect that the intellectualism and erudition of his intervention are equalled only by its length.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, Sir Edward Garnier.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not know whether it is “Ah, Bisto” or just “Ah”, but thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, in a state of eager anticipation.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

You should hold your horses, Mr Speaker.

All of us who have practised as lawyers, and my hon. Friend the Minister is one such, have had to pick up a duff brief from time to time, and I am not entirely sure that it is fair to pin upon my hon. Friend the difficulties in which he finds himself in trying to explain this Bill. I was rude enough about it on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend was gracious enough politely to refer to my concerns. Both he and I were fortunate that I was not on the Committee dealing with the Bill, but it is fortuitous that I happen to be here this afternoon to invite those listening to, or reading the debate in due course, to read into this brief set of remarks—for the second time when I speak, I notice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds it convenient to leave the Chamber, but there we are—what I said on Second Reading, because I do not think anything has been done to the Bill since Second Reading to alter my mind about it. I do not take a trade union view. I do not take a cataclysmic view of the sort expressed by the Opposition spokesman that this is a Bill designed to undermine workers’ rights, or whatever it may be. I just think that it is a particularly silly piece of legislation. If I am to be rude, I might just briefly explain why.

I can understand that clauses 2 to 4 provide the basis upon which the court exercises its consideration in clause 1. So when considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty, it can take into account, or, as it says in the Bill, “have regard to” what is set out in clauses 2, 3 and 4. But I am not at all sure, and I wish I was in a position to be convinced by my hon. Friend, that were a court to have regard, as it is required to by the legislation, that it would be in a better position than that of a court dealing with the case now, given the state of the common law and the existing statutory provisions.

Clause 2—I speak generally to the amendments—invites the court to have regard to whether the person, presumably the defendant,

“was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members.”

I would be interested to know whether that is a matter of law or a matter of fact. Sometimes a judge is required to rule as a matter of law that something is or is not in the public interest. Sometimes that decision can be informed by evidence, but by and large it is a matter of law on which the judge is required to make a decision. I appreciate that we are dealing here with judge alone cases; we are not dealing with judges and juries. But the judge will have to separate his or her mind into the fact-finding part of his brain and the law-deciding part of his brain. It is not difficult, but it has to be done. If we are to be clear about what the Bill is meant to do, we need to know whether a benefit of society or any of its members is a matter of law or evidence. Again, how does that really affect the current state of the law?

Clause 3 states that the court must also have regard to

“whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the negligence or breach of statutory duty took place, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.”

We heard a degree of teasing from the Opposition about the “generally responsible approach”, but I am afraid that the issue is a bit too serious for teasing. I want to know—it is not clear—whether evidence of that responsible approach is to be garnered from one’s lifetime as a member of a fire service or ambulance service, or as an individual, a school teacher or whatever it might be, or by and large from the occasion on which the negligence is alleged to have taken place.

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend will be responding because not only is he the embodiment of political heroism, he is the embodiment of political common sense. I know that because I have heard him say things that are eminent common sense. I dare say that in winding up the debate this afternoon he will do no more than utter eminent common sense, but with a delightful Conservative political tinge that I would be disappointed if he did not show.

I was elected to this House as a Conservative. I cannot wait for a single-party Conservative Government. I cannot wait for Robert Jenrick, the next Member of Parliament for Newark, to take his place in this House. Given that this debate continues until next Thursday, I hope he will be able to make his maiden speech during the Queen’s Speech debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.

I am now getting into the area of waffle—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I finish on a serious point. This Queen’s Speech is full of good things and good intentions but I say with the greatest deference to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we need to be a little careful when we construct laws that do no more than send out a message. If I want to send out a message, I will use semaphore.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the next speaker, may I impress upon the House that although there is no formal time limit on speeches, a certain self-denying ordinance would help? I invite hon. Members to help each other in these matters. Although in terms of courtesy, legendary as it is, there is much to be said for Members seeking to imitate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), there is no need for them to feel the need to do so as far as length of speech is concerned.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I said that we were in a short-term hurry, albeit that it has taken us a long time to get here.

Some 100,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced because of the other terrible actions by the Syrian regime and opposition forces, and 350 were killed by the chemical attacks and many more injured. Whatever the method of earlier killings, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that military action to deal with chemical weapons could well lead to action to consolidate that military gain and then escalate to other action. In the light of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, the public suspect mission creep, to use that hideous expression. It is only because of the final words of the Government’s motion—

“before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place”—

that I am prepared to vote with the Government this evening.

However, I am concerned that much of the anodyne and uncontroversial nature of the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, is an attempt to suck us into a particular position irrespective of the merits of it and the evidence on the ground. I am also concerned that there is a distinction between the third paragraph of the motion, which requires

“military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”,

and the 10th, which refers simply to “deterring” it. I urge the Government to listen hard to what has been said tonight, and not to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for either the Justice Secretary or a Ministry of Justice Minister to make a statement about the arrangements for the re-interment of Richard III? As he will know—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) will know this too—the university of Leicester was given a licence by the MOJ to make arrangements for the re-interment of the remains of Richard III by next autumn, but the Plantagenet Alliance—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman wants a statement on the matter. We are deeply obliged to him.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

First, may I make it perfectly clear to the ignorant person who tweeted about me this afternoon that I have, in fact, declared my interest in relation to this matter on the amendment paper?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Derbyshire county council case, while Lord Keith held that the council should not be able to sue, he confirmed that corporations should be able to sue to protect their trading reputation? The heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that this is about inequality of arms. He thinks rich, very large and hugely well-resourced companies are bullying less resourced individuals, but the same criticism could be made of immensely rich private individuals who bring claims. Robert Maxwell used his millions—perhaps they were other people’s millions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch my eye and make his own speech in due course, but we do not have all that long for this debate and we have got the gist of his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

It does, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I point out that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was born not in 1853 but, if memory serves me, in 1952?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

On 26 October, and I share a birthday with President Mitterrand and Hillary Clinton. Let us move on, however.

I have already declared my interest, so I hope I do not have to do so again. I want to say that this is not a question of being right or wrong. I am not saying that I am right, that my hon. Friend the Minister is right or that the right hon. Member for Tooting is wrong, but that this is a matter of judgment and opinion. We are perfectly entitled to have different views about how best to order the law on defamation.

It so happens that the right hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on Lords amendment 2 on non-natural persons. I happen to think that Lord Bingham was right in the Jameel case in 2007 to make it quite clear that he thought it was perfectly proper and right for corporations to be able to bring actions for libel without proof of special damage—without having to show money loss. I will not recite all that he said, as there is not enough time, but it is worth bearing it in mind when some of the more hyperbolic accusations are traded about companies that bring actions for libel to terrorise or use their financial muscle to inhibit the defence of those actions or to inhibit free speech.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is exceptionally lengthy. I know that he has a distinguished record at the bar. If he were being paid by the word he would be greatly enriched, but I trust that he has made his point to his satisfaction. If not, he can always have another go in a moment.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

What the PCC was good at was dealing with unfairness—the hideous intrusion on private grief, the doorstepper, the camera coming through the letter box, the knock on the door demanding a photograph of the dead child and so on. The PCC dealt with that extremely well, but what it could not deal with was the multi-issue disputes that I have outlined.

It is not just a question of assessing the truth or falsity of words or of whether they are defensible and honest comment. On honest comment and certain forms of qualified privileged defence, the judge or the arbiter has to consider the question of malice and the respondent newspaper’s motive when it published the words complained of. I do not think, even with the best will in the world, that the proposed arbitration system for relevant publishers, under a recognised regulator, good though it will be, will be sufficiently well breeched and resourced to substitute itself for a disinterested judge when dealing with the case.

When it comes to disciplinary measures or the incentivisation of costs to bring people into this scheme, either as claimants or defendants—this goes back to a point that I made in the earlier debate—it will not be possible to deal with many expensive cases cheaply and quickly. They will need to go to a more formal, court-like, if not court, system. They will require proper arbitration with qualified arbiters, the sifting and assessment of evidence, the judging of witnesses and the reading of lots of documents. Those are functions of any form of arbitration dispute and it will not be quick or cheap.

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Wales won.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) keeps chuntering from a sedentary position that Wales won. His point is now on the record. I trust that he is satisfied.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) will have to wait and see whether the Egyptians cut and paste our system.

On the point about overselling, I have a suspicion that we will not see many of these cases. The arbitration system will be free, which will increase access to it for those without means of their own, so I suspect that many self-represented people will come before it. That will place a strain on the panels deciding complaints.

Leveson recommended a ring-fenced monetary penalty system under which money recovered from malefactors would help to fund the system and the cases being brought before it. It would be interesting to find out from the Prime Minister whether a system of compensatory payments would be available to the body, or whether it would simply be a question of punishing the respondent newspaper or media organisation. If a victim of newspaper misconduct required compensation, would they have to go to the courts to settle or get an agreement from the respondent, or would the independent body be entitled to award the newspaper’s money as compensation? The latter, too, would incentivise claimants to use the system, rather than going to the expense and trouble of clogging up the courts with less important cases.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

So that we get the full benefit of the Solicitor-General’s eloquence, perhaps he could—

[The Solicitor-General]

Shall I repeat the answer?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that will be necessary, but perhaps in future the hon. and learned Gentleman would face the House. We would all be greatly obliged.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is my pleasure to stand in for the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—I understand that she has informed the Attorney-General, if not the Solicitor-General. Reports from the media, the courts and interpreters themselves show that, contrary to the Solicitor-General’s briefing, problems with ALS are getting worse, not better. The MOJ intends to publish its analysis of ALS’s performance this week, based on data that I understand were collected by ALS itself. Will the Law Officers conduct their own investigation of the collapse of the interpreting and translating service in our courts, one that will put the interests of justice before the self-serving interests of the Ministry of Justice and its contractor?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

The CPS can tell us; my hon. and learned Friend can tell us; he can tell the Ministry of Justice; we can tell the Ministry of Justice—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The demeanour of the Solicitor-General is eccentric. I cannot account for how he performs in Her Majesty’s courts, but in the Chamber it would be helpful if he looked in the direction of the generality of Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

That is a deeply uncontroversial statement to make.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Gerry Sutcliffe. Not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I support the Government’s drive for more prosecutions of rape. Will the Solicitor-General support my move to allocate a centre to North Yorkshire and York to help victims of rape? Were we to have such a centre—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that this is a priority of the Crown Prosecution Service, but the Solicitor-General can respond to the first part of the question briefly.

[The Solicitor-General]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the way in which rape cases are currently prosecuted. As was stated in this House the other day, we want to bear down on the attrition rate. The conviction rate bears comparison with other aspects of the criminal system, but we want to ensure that rape victims can report their allegations to the police and that they are treated with care and sensitivity right the way through to what we hope is a conviction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady’s first paragraph or so would be better directed at the relevant Departments—the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education—but the points that she makes will doubtless have been noted. On the later points, I will certainly consider what she has to say and see whether it is appropriate to put such a note in the Library.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Williamson. He is not here.

Point of Order

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer to her question is that the best way for a mistake to be corrected is for the Minister, if he has made a mistake, to correct it. We are about to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

There was a degree of confusion; the hon. Lady’s question was too general. I answered the question correctly. There are two European directives, one of which is signed, and one of which is not, hence the confusion. The former right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, now Lord Reid, signed on behalf of the Government the European directive to which I referred in my answer yesterday. The hon. Lady may have referred to a different directive that has not yet been signed, so we were both right and we were both wrong.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want in any sense to treat this matter with levity, but I hope the Solicitor-General will understand if I say that that absolutely ingenious response is proof of the argument that no reply from a lawyer is ever simple.

[The Solicitor-General]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Lady has put her view very fairly and squarely on the record. We will leave it there for today. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and indeed to the Solicitor-General.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Garnier and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I think that the train of my thought is concentrating on the shadow Solicitor-General.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The train of my thought is that I would like to make some progress down the Order Paper because other Members are waiting to ask questions. We will hear the Solicitor-General’s answer pronto.

[The Solicitor-General]

I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) that the Government and the Law Officers’ Department are extremely concerned to ensure that the issues about which she has just addressed the House are properly catered for within the criminal justice system and by the Law Officers.